Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What lawsuits have been filed against Gundry MD, Living Proof, or other Gundry business entities and what were the outcomes?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows active litigation against Living Proof Inc. — including a 2025 Illinois class action alleging violations of the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) over a website “hair quiz” — and a long history of consumer complaints and critical coverage of Gundry-branded companies, but I found no court filings or final judicial outcomes for Gundry MD or its related entities in the provided sources (Living Proof’s BIPA case: Rodriguez v. Living Proof Inc., Case No. 2025CH02910) [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention any settled or adjudicated class-action or regulatory judgments against Gundry MD in the documents you provided (not found in current reporting).
1. Living Proof: a clear, recent biometric privacy lawsuit
In March–April 2025 Living Proof Inc. was sued in Illinois state court in Rodriguez v. Living Proof Inc., No. 2025CH02910, a putative class action that accuses the company of capturing, storing and using Illinois residents’ facial-geometric data via its online Hair Quiz and Haircare Advisor without the written disclosures and consent required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA); the plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $5,000 per intentional/reckless violation (or $1,000 per negligent violation) and to represent a multi-thousand-person class [1] [2]. Multiple legal-news outlets summarized the complaint’s central allegations and the remedies sought, and placed the suit squarely in the wave of BIPA litigation that has targeted consumer-facing tech features [1] [2].
2. Living Proof: other enforcement and prior settlement context
Living Proof’s legal history includes a 2015 regulatory settlement with the California Air Resources Board: a consumer‑products enforcement matter resolved for $37,400 concerning non‑compliant hair products that reportedly exceeded VOC limits and contributed 2.8 tons of excess VOC emissions [3]. That 2015 matter is administrative/regulatory and unrelated to the 2025 biometric class action, but it provides context that Living Proof has faced at least one prior enforcement settlement [3].
3. Gundry MD: lots of consumer complaints, limited public court records in these sources
The sources show substantial consumer complaints about Gundry MD products and practices — numerous Better Business Bureau entries and user-review sites collect grievances about unwanted charges, refund difficulties and dissatisfaction with product claims [4] [5] [6]. Independent critics and consumer‑fraud sites characterize Gundry’s books and products as promoting pseudoscience and note controversy among medical professionals about his claims [7] [8] [9] [10]. However, the documents you provided do not include named lawsuits filed against Gundry MD or final judicial outcomes for the company — available sources do not mention any specific filed complaints or verdicts against Gundry MD in court dockets supplied here (not found in current reporting) [4] [5] [7].
4. Where critics and plaintiffs-focused outlets overlap — complaints vs. lawsuits
Many pages in your results document extensive consumer complaints, calls for class actions, and critical commentary aimed at Gundry’s claims and marketing, including blog posts urging legal action, but these are generally user complaints or advocacy/critique pieces rather than filed litigation records; examples include consumer complaint aggregators and skeptical medical bloggers who argue Gundry’s claims lack evidence and urge caution [11] [7] [5] [9]. Those materials signal reputational risk and consumer dissatisfaction but are not the same as court filings or settlements [11] [7].
5. Limitations of the available reporting and next research steps
The dataset you provided includes news summaries, regulatory settlement pages, consumer complaints and advocacy pieces, but it lacks comprehensive litigation-database output (the RPX litigation document returned a login page) and court dockets for Gundry entities [12]. To firm up whether Gundry‑related businesses have been sued and what the legal outcomes were, consult federal and state court dockets (PACER, state trial-court portals), specialized litigation trackers (ClassAction.org, TopClassActions), or paid services that capture settlements and judgments; the current sources do show Living Proof’s active BIPA litigation and a prior CARB settlement, but do not show adjudicated lawsuits or settlements against Gundry MD [1] [2] [3] [12].
6. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas in the sources
Coverage of Living Proof’s 2025 suit is straightforward legal reporting by class-action news outlets that frame it within Illinois’ strong BIPA jurisprudence [1] [2]. Coverage of Gundry MD mixes consumer complaints, skeptical medical commentary and promotional content; sites critical of Gundry emphasize alleged pseudoscience and consumer harm [7] [8] [10], while company profiles and marketing materials (and BBB accreditation notices) present the business as legitimate and customer‑facing [9] [13]" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[13]. Readers should note those opposing agendas: legal-news outlets focus on statutory claims, consumer blogs on grievances, and company pages on branding — none of which in your set resolve court adjudications for Gundry MD [1] [9] [5].
If you want, I can: (a) search court dockets for Gundry MD and named corporate affiliates for filed lawsuits and outcomes; or (b) assemble a timeline of public complaints, media critiques, and any regulatory actions beyond what’s in these sources. Which would you prefer?